On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 07:39:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 11:06 PM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> otherwise everyone is just going to filter you out as "old man
>> nick is complaining about JS again" :)
>
> Young whippersnappers with your fancy cell phones and color monitors! Why, in my day we had ASR-33 teletypes at 10 characters per second, and we were blessed!

Aieeee, it's the crypt keeper! D=

<3

On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 08:07:19 UTC, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 07:39:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 7/5/2012 11:06 PM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
>>> otherwise everyone is just going to filter you out as "old man
>>> nick is complaining about JS again" :)
>>
>> Young whippersnappers with your fancy cell phones and color monitors! Why, in my day we had ASR-33 teletypes at 10 characters per second, and we were blessed!
>
> Aieeee, it's the crypt keeper! D=
>
> <3

Haha, I still got something like that in home alongside with good ol' type writter!

Looks just great!

Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:51:59 +0200
"nazriel" <nazriel6969@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 05:45:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:26:01 -0400
> > Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in
> >> the
> >> code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see
> >> the
> >> output!
> >> 
> >> Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel
> >> free
> >> to chime in with feedback!
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Andrei
> >
> > It looks nice, but do we really need to be pulling in a giant
> > JS-bomb
> > like JQuery on D's homepage?
> 
> It's same question like
> Why use binary bomb like D instead of using C?
> 
> Using jQuery, despite rapid development I gain one, very important thing. It's well tested framework and I don't need to care about IE glitches and use hacks to support all browsers.
> 
> I respect your state about JavaScript, but please, lets not make in another "X language sux" thread. D community is already full of this comparing crap including "D sux, Lua rox" statements :P Work needs to be done.
> 
> Of course I am open for suggestions and have will to replace jQuery with any same good and scale-able solution but more lightweight.
> 
> Best regards,
> Damian Ziemba

Yea, sorry, in my haste I worded it all very poorly. I was just concerned about whether using jquery (and pulling it in from a whole separate server) might have a lot of (or too much) bloat for the homepage. I haven't used jquery, but if I understand correctly it's considered one of the bulkier JS libs out there, hence my concern. That's what I was trying to say (and yes, totally missed the mark!).

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> Yea, sorry, in my haste I worded it all very poorly. I was just
> concerned about whether using jquery (and pulling it in from a whole
> separate server) might have a lot of (or too much) bloat for the
> homepage. I haven't used jquery, but if I understand correctly it's

This is the address: http://code.jquery.com/jquery.min.js

As many sites use this address (and the one at
ajax.googleapis.com), chances are good you already have a copy in
your browser cache.

Only problem I see: There's no version number in the address. I
guess it's always the current version. You could lose some
visitors when the current version hits 2.0 :-)

(jQuery 2.0 won't support old browsers like Internet Explorer 8.)

On 7/6/2012 1:06 AM, nazriel wrote:
> I believe there are not much 56kbps modem users this days anyways! *grins*

I still have one in my equipment closet, and a 2400 one in the basement.

Funny how the only computer I didn't keep turned out to be the collector one worth a tidy sum.

On 2012-07-06 10:55, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Yea, sorry, in my haste I worded it all very poorly. I was just
> concerned about whether using jquery (and pulling it in from a whole
> separate server) might have a lot of (or too much) bloat for the
> homepage. I haven't used jquery, but if I understand correctly it's
> considered one of the bulkier JS libs out there, hence my concern.
> That's what I was trying to say (and yes, totally missed the mark!).

jQuery is actually preferred to load from another server because it's such a common JS library that there's a pretty good chance that the client already has it cached. But I would prefer to load it from Google instead of jquery.com, for example:

https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery.min.js

Remember, the fastest request it the one that never needs to be made :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 7/6/12 4:43 AM, xenon325 wrote:
> Looks just great!
>
> Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?

I think that's a good idea. We can show the compile and run time separately, where the compilation speed should come shining.

Right now clicking on "run" brings a frame title "Application output". I'm thinking, after the program finished the title could change to e.g. "Application output [compile time: 228ms; run time 157ms]".

On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will influence the timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.


Andrei

On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 12:47:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/6/12 4:43 AM, xenon325 wrote:
>> Looks just great!
>>
>> Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?
>
> I think that's a good idea. We can show the compile and run time separately, where the compilation speed should come shining.
>
> Right now clicking on "run" brings a frame title "Application output". I'm thinking, after the program finished the title could change to e.g. "Application output [compile time: 228ms; run time 157ms]".
>
> On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will influence the timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.
>
>
> Andrei

Well, they are always helpful when comparing compile times with
Go. :)


--
Paulo

On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 12:47:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/6/12 4:43 AM, xenon325 wrote:
>> Looks just great!
>>
>> Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?
>
> I think that's a good idea. We can show the compile and run time separately, where the compilation speed should come shining.
>
> Right now clicking on "run" brings a frame title "Application output". I'm thinking, after the program finished the title could change to e.g. "Application output [compile time: 228ms; run time 157ms]".
>
> On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will influence the timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.
>
>
> Andrei

Not sure if this will be a double post.

We can always make use of that information to compare compile times
with Go. :)

--
Paulo